The Constrained vs. Unconstrained view of Human Nature

I am not sure who first developed these ideas, but I first learned about them while reading Thomas Sowell’s book, A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles. In short, Sowell explains that, while there are many different forms under each one, there are really only two primary ways to look at human nature. He calls the first the constrained view. It is constrained because it sees human nature as permanently flawed: fixed and incapable of change. Thus, those who hold a constrained view of humanity try to make the best of things by taking the failings of our nature into account when they organize human activities. On the other hand, the unconstrained view holds that man’s nature is malleable: it can be purposely directed. In short, those holding the unconstrained view of human nature believe that man is capable of perfecting himself. For these people, there are no boundaries to what man can make himself to be. Some have even boasted that man can be and even is his own god.

Then there is Thomas Sowell, the economist and political philosopher. He prefers an older way of looking at American politics–a much older way. In his classic 1987 work, A Conflict of Visions, Sowell identifies two competing worldviews, or visions, that have underlain the Western political tradition for centuries.

Sowell calls one worldview the “constrained vision.” It sees human nature as flawed or fallen, seeking to make the best of the possibilities that exist within that constraint. The competing worldview, which Sowell terms the “unconstrained vision,” instead sees human nature as capable of continual improvement.

You can trace the constrained vision back to Aristotle; the unconstrained vision to Plato. But the neatest illustration of the two visions occurred during the great upheavals of the 18th century, the American and French revolutions.

The American Revolution embodied the constrained vision. “In the United States,” Sowell says, “it was assumed from the outset that what you needed to do above all was minimize [the damage that could be done by] the flaws in human nature.” The founders did so by composing a constitution of checks and balances. More than two centuries later, their work remains in place.

The French Revolution, by contrast, embodied the unconstrained vision. “In France,” Sowell says, “the idea was that if you put the right people in charge–if you had a political Messiah–then problems would just go away.” The result? The Terror, Napoleon and so many decades of instability that France finally sorted itself out only when Charles de Gaulle declared the Fifth Republic.

The threat posed to individual rights and liberty by those who hold an unconstrained view of human nature is that those people sincerely believe they hold a superior understanding of what is best for humanity: what constitutes our “perfected” state. Consequently, they derive a sense of moral obligation – an imperative, if you will – to save mankind from itself. Thus, they tend to force their will on others, even to the point of eliminating those who refuse to accept their master plans. Whether people want to accept this or not, Hitler’s “Master race” was derived the American Eugenics movement, and both are excellent examples of an unconstrained view of human nature in actual application. It doesn’t matter that both programs claimed to be based on “scientific research,” they both imposed the will of their leadership over the will of others – even to the point of murder. This is as clear a violation of Natural Rights and Natural Law as one can find in history.

[NOTE: The threat of the unconstrained view of human nature is often coupled with a collectivist view of society. Most of the regimes in the 20th Century that committed real atrocities were the result of a coupling of these two ideologies. The individual who would understand the principles of liberty and seek to protect and preserve individual rights must be aware of these facts as they constitute his/her principle opponent.]

Reblogged this on aurorawatcherak and commented:
I don’t know who first developed these ideas either, but it is a major theme in Paul the apostle’s letter to the Romans. History bears this out — humans mostly stink. Given that history, why would we think that, in and of ourselves, we would be able to derive anything good through our own efforts? Understanding that, our Founders were careful to construct a government that slows us down, that forces us to think, argue and debate, and that assures that the minority is protected against the minority, that the wolves can’t outvote the lamb — except when we ignore the government the Founders created.